All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:22:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1486543409-11493-3-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:43:29AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> From: Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com>
> 
> A load balancer calculates imbalance factor for particular shed
> domain and tries to steal up the prescribed amount of weighted load.
> However, a small imbalance factor would sometimes prevent us from
> stealing any tasks at all. When a CPU is newly idle, it should
> steal first task which passes a migration criteria.
> 

So ideally we'd reduce the number of special cases instead of increase
them. Does this patch make an actual difference, if so how much and with
what workload?

Also, I suppose that if we finally manage to parameterize the whole
load-balancing to act on: nr_running/util/load depending on the domain
this all naturally falls into place.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-09 12:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-08  8:43 [RFC,v2 1/3] sched: set loop_max after rq lock is taken Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  8:43 ` [RFC,v2 2/3] sched: set number of iterations to h_nr_running Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-09 18:59     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  8:43 ` [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  9:19   ` Mike Galbraith
2017-02-09 10:12     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:22   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-02-09 18:54     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-13 13:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-13 17:17         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-14 18:28           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-15 18:58             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-02-16 11:20               ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-03-08 15:35                 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:14 ` [RFC,v2 1/3] sched: set loop_max after rq lock is taken Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.